AMD has lower IPC than Intel meaning that performance is lower in applications and games that don't handle cores properly. It should be better than an equivalent i5 at the same price for general usage and multitasking. Another low point is power usage which is higher than i5s.

Personally I'd go with the 8320 and overclock that. You can can get AMD boards with the same features (without PCIE3) as Intel ones at lower prices. Their current socket AM3+ should support the next gen Steamroller (coming ~2014), while the 1155 Intel socket is a dead end. Alternatively, you can wait for Intel's Haswell which should hit on their new socket around June, but don't expect it to be budget friendly.

AMD has lower IPC than Intel meaning that performance is lower in applications and games that don't handle cores properly. It should be better than an equivalent i5 at the same price for general usage and multitasking. Another low point is power usage which is higher than i5s.

Personally I'd go with the 8320 and overclock that. You can can get AMD boards with the same features (without PCIE3) as Intel ones at lower prices. Their current socket AM3+ should support the next gen Steamroller (coming ~2014), while the 1155 Intel socket is a dead end. Alternatively, you can wait for Intel's Haswell which should hit on their new socket around June, but don't expect it to be budget friendly.

Thanks for the amazingly detailed response. I'm not stuck to one brand I just want something decent at a fair price. Not into much gaming anymore so I would barely do that. You seem to think Intel is a better choice and I have been eyeing the i5 so...

It's an awesome deal if you typically deal with several heavy duty applications simultaneously. An equivalent Intel chip in that area would cost a lot more. It's not so good for single application loads, though, which is more typical usage. So gaming would be an example where you might want to choose a different product.

It's an awesome deal if you typically deal with several heavy duty applications simultaneously. An equivalent Intel chip in that area would cost a lot more. It's not so good for single application loads, though, which is more typical usage. So gaming would be an example where you might want to choose a different product.

Anybody that tells you AMDs aren't powerful is an Intel fanboy. AMDs are powerful and they are just as good and efficient as Intel's more expensive counterpart. I was an Intel-Only user and I decided to give AMD a chance this time around and I can't complain. The FX 8150 8 Core CPU I got its a monster and it handles everything I throw at it with ease and without hesitation.

OP maybe you can say what config your current PC has and name what you typically do with it so we can get a better idea of where you're coming from and what you need.

Also, I don't believe Intel is better, it all depends on a lot of factors really. Even if AMD is far from the crown, it's quite competitive in price/performance.

Boy am I glad this isn't an e-penis measuring contest...

E6600 OC'd 3.24Ghz2GB OCZ RAMATI X1950XTXGigabyte Mobo

^^I used to game way back but after I bought my PS3 I stopped with PC games. I ONLY use my PC for DreamWeaver, some Photoshop and maybe some video editing in the near future. Honestly, the ONLY way I'd game is if I get a free game from a friend or it's just something I have to have. A friend of mine gave me a download code for AC3 because he bought 2 video cards and got them included. That would be the only game I played.

So in short, web editing, photo editing and movie editing down the line. Oh and streaming HD movies to my TV.

Anyways, I feel that AMD CPU is good at that price point. Anything over that and I wouldn't bother as you can go with the 3570k which is generally the better buy. But really, will you notice a difference? Likely not.If you want to keep it under 200 and will be doing a lot of multitasking, editing or any heavy duty stuff the 8350 will be just fine.